Does requiring that your team call you 'chef'' earn you respect, or is it a sign of an inflated ego?

Does requiring that your team call you 'chef'' earn you respect, or is it a sign of an inflated ego?

Last week we published an interview with Michelin-starred chef Hélène Darroze, in which we spoke about her refusal to let her team call her chef. 

She argued that the title doesn't command respect, and that rather, to earn your brigade's regard, "you work with them, you communicate with them, you teach them things, you delegate." 

The title dates back to Escoffier, who was an army chef in the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-71, and thus modelled his kitchen hierarchy on the military model. He defined the roles still used in the kitchen today: chef, sous chef, chef de partie, chef de commis

To clarify the matter, we asked you what you thought in a poll: 

Though the number of replies conveyed an overwhelming sense that no, chefs don't think that respect lies in a title, comments were more nuanced.

Some argued that it's not so much about respect but discipline, and that because of the precision needed to work in a professional kitchen, informal titles have no place there. 

Others were on Hélène's side and said that as long as the team are doing as they're told, calling their superior chef wasn't necessary - and that on the contrary, a team calling a chef chef because they're told to doesn't mean they'll do what they're told. 

Then there are those, like Neil Rankin and Rupert Waites said they used the word willy nilly, calling everyone chef. 

"Have you seen chef?

"Which one?

"You mean chef chef?" 

"Yes chef, he went for a smoke with chef chef"

What do you say chefs? Chip into the debate by leaving a comment below!